Read the Bills Act Coalition

Monday, November 9, 2009

Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists, Officials Say - ABC News

From ABC News:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News....Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan tried to make contact with people linked to al Qaeda.It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said. ..One senior lawmaker said the CIA had, so far, refused to brief the intelligence committees on what, if any, knowledge they had about Hasan's efforts....CIA director Leon Panetta and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, have been asked by Congress "to preserve" all documents and intelligence files that relate to Hasan, according to the lawmaker.



Read Here: Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists, Officials Say - ABC News

3 comments:

paul_h said...

A lot of people dropped the ball here. This could have and should have been prevented.

I am also very concerned that such a deadly weapon is so easily available. I know about the 2nd Amendment, but does that give you the right to "bear" a semi-automatic pistol with 20 rounds of armor piercing ammunition? Who needs that kind of firepower?

Jody L. Wilcox said...

especially since this base is supposedly a "No Gun" area

Cargosquid said...

Paul.

The pistol that Hassan was carrying, unless he had an illegal source, was not carrying armor piercing ammo. Which is moot since no one was wearing armor.

The FN FiveSeven is a small caliber weapon, firing a .22 caliber round. If he had not listened to the hype and had carried a heavier pistol, the casualties would have probably been much worse.

The 2nd does not mention what type of weapons are allowed. Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, arms was and is usually the term for military weaponry.

As to it being a gun-free zone, well now you see how well gun-free zones work against criminals. Only law-abiding soldiers, etc, follow those laws. I've always felt that its ludicrous for the military to train in arms and then restrict access. Yes, its more convenient because less care is needed, but, we're at war and the front line is everywhere.